Editorial: Create a sanctuary from grandstanding

Friday

Feb 10, 2017 at 12:01 AMFeb 10, 2017 at 7:39 AM

Enough grandstanding about sanctuary cities. First it was Columbus city officials challenging the Trump administration with talk of declaring Columbus a sanctuary city, ostentatiously ordering police and city officials to ignore the immigration status of city residents and promising to create a legal-defense fund for immigrants. This exercise in virtue signaling could have consequences for Columbus residents if the federal government makes good on Trump’s threat to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

Then came Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel and state Rep. Candice Keller, R-Middletown, putting on a political performance of their own, proposing a bill that would ban sanctuary cities and hold city officials criminally and civilly liable for crimes committed by city residents who are in the United States illegally. As treasurer, Mandel has no legislative authority, so he apparently teamed up with Keller to give his announcement a pretense of plausibility. Mandel, preparing for another run for the U.S. Senate, sees this issue as ripe for scoring points with Trump voters.

This in turn, gave state Reps. Dan Ramos of Lorain and Stephanie Howse of Cleveland their own moment at center stage to denounce Mandel and Keller and to propose a bill that would bar the state from criminalizing officials of sanctuary cities.

If everyone has squeezed the maximum political juice out of this controversy, there there are far more pressing issues affecting far more people that municipal and state officials should be focusing on.

***

A New York Times story in Wednesday’s Dispatch noted an uptick in the percentage of high-school students who support the First Amendment. Ninety-one percent of 12,000 students surveyed by the Knight Foundation said people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. In most things, nine out of 10 is not a bad outcome, but when we’re talking about a fundamental liberty, one that is denied to millions of people around the globe, 100 percent support would be more welcome.

Unfortunately, the 91 percent figure is not the whole story. When asked if they support the right of people to engage in public speech offensive to others, only 45 percent said yes. OK, these are high-school kids and they have many more immediate concerns, so thinking through the nuances of free speech is far, far down the list. But this still is a disturbing statistic.

Teachers, take note. Important followup questions are, “Who decides what is offensive speech?” and “How could that power be abused under the guise of prohibiting ‘offensive’ speech?”

The goal of education should be to produce tough-minded and open-minded young adults who are not afraid to hear challenging speech.

***

Regional hospitals are encouraged to join in the effort launched by the Ohio Children’s Hospital Association to help identify infants who come to the hospital exhibiting indications of abuse.

“If we can intervene at the first minor injury, we have the opportunity to prevent the child from experiencing more harm in the future,” said Dr. Jonathan Thackeray, who is the lead investigator in the project.

When babies are brought to participating hospitals, physicians will check for a range of injuries that often are the result of abuse. The effort is focused on babies up to 6 months old, because they are at highest risk. The next step is to extend the campaign to large pediatric practices throughout the state. This is a good project that deserves support.